Columbus, Georgia

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS



REGULAR MEETING - 2:00 P.M. ? JULY 3, 2002





The Regular Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, July 3,

2002 at 2:00 P.M., on the 1st Floor of the Government Center Annex, 420-10th

Street. Members present were:





Mrs. Leah Braxton

Mr. Larry Phillips

Mr. David Fox

Mr. James Billingsley

Mr. Billy Edwards





Also present were Mr. Danny Cargill, Secretary of the Board, and Ms. Veronica

Pitts, Recording Secretary.





CASES TABLED FROM THE JUNE 5th MEETING.



Case No. 02-V72?-Denied.



Bruce Chapman, 3325 Edgewood Road, presented the appeal from a Decision of the

Building Official that an accessory structure, a storage building, 8? x 16?, is

not permitted in the front yard. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Chapman gave the following information: He can not put the accessory structure

in the back yard because there is no way to transport it. There is a sprinkler

system and a fence in the back yard. There are other similar carports in the

front yard.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Fred Belvin came forward. He stated

the accessory structure is an eye soar and it is not permitted in the front

yard.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Edwards, to deny this

appeal because a hardship was not shown and there are other options. Motion

carried unanimously.







BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/02



Case No. 02-V83?-Denied.



Holley Talley, 5429 Wayne Drive and Ray Phillips presented the appeal for a

variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 2 feet, in

order to make an addition, a carport, 18? x 24?, to a single family residence.

The property is zoned R-2.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Talley and Mr. Phillips gave the following information: He would like to add a

carport to his house. His house burned down and they had to rebuild. He also

wants the carports because his wife has health problems with her foot.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Mrs. Jackson and her son Doug

Jackson came forward. They have concerns with the water coming on to their

property. Their property will depreciate with the carport at the bedroom

window.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to deny this

appeal because a hardship was not shown and there are other options. The

carport must be removed within 30 days. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V88---Granted.



Harold Kendrick, 6332 Parker Drive, presented the appeal for a variance

to increase the maximum height requirement from 14 feet to 18 feet, on a

building. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

the applicant gave the following information: This is an existing building

that was put up by Home Depot. He would like to extend the height

requirement.



There was a letter of opposition from concerned neighbors, stating they

had concerns with the appearance of the structure, the height and the structure

being fastened down on a permanent foundation.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal with a vote of 4 to 1 with Mr. Phillips voting against the motion .



2

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/02



Case No. 02-V98---Tabled.



A. H. Dudley, III, 304 S. Lumpkin Road, presented his appeal for a

variance to reduce the requirement for a 6 inch aggregate base to existing

base. The property is zoned M-1.



Bill Duck, Inspections and Code Enforcement Division, stated that he knows the

Board heard the case last month, but there was some confusion as to the date

between Mr. Dudley and our staff as to when he would be here initially. He was

scheduled to be here this meeting and then we were able to get him on the June

meeting which he didn?t understand that he was suppose to be on the June

meeting. So we would ask that you hear Mr. Dudley and give him a chance to

speak on this case and then take whatever action you feel is necessary.



David Fox: You are right, there was some misunderstanding

from the explanation. I don?t understand why we are hearing this particular

case. If you could give us some back ground on why.



Bill Duck: The council back in (I think) 1999 passed an ordinance dealing with

existing mobile home parks. They went in and developed certain criteria that

had to be met in order to bring the existing mobile home parks up to a certain

standard and it dealt mainly with most of your public areas. Your roads in

there, your lighting, ground cover, erosion type issues, garbage dumpsters,

garbage collection- those general issues. They established a standard and then

gave all the mobile home parks 14 months to come into compliance with that new

ordinance. What we did then is met with each one of the park owners, Rebecca

did, and went through as to the elements that needed to be addressed in their

particular park. Then they had the 14 months to come into compliance. At the

end of their 14 months, we go back out to look at it. We had a number of the

mobile home parks that were working on it that weren?t quite completed that got

some additional time. That?s how we got to where we are in this case. We have

an issue that were dealing with Mr. Dudley on with the streets. I think the

other corrections in his park have been made. There is an issue with streets

that Rebecca had been dealing with him on that still is not in compliance with

the ordinance as far as we are concerned with that. The appeal in the

ordinance, the way the ordinance was written is- he has appeal rights to this

Board to hear, if he doesn?t agree with our determination on his part then he

has a right to appeal to this Board the decisions that we make on the park.







3

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





David Fox: It talks about the requirement of a 6 inch aggregate base. That

seems to be more of an engineering design issue than a variance or a rezoning

issue.

Bill Duck: It could have been written up as a Decision from the Building

Official that we denied it because of what he has in place. The way that it

was written up when he came in was a variance, there are several options that

he has-as far as a road base in the park. This is one, a six inch aggregate.

That?s what we had been working on him with and done some test with him on is a

6 inch base in there. You can use a gravel base, you can use a lesser gravel

base with an asphalt on top or you can use concrete. There are dimensions in

that ordinance for the various types.

David Fox: It has to be a smooth aggregate of some kind?

Bill Duck: Something that is a normal drivable surface is what were looking

for.

David Fox: But not crushed and run or something like that. Bill Duck: Not

necessarily crush and run, it just says an aggregate base. It gives you a good

base that is drivable during all weather that drains properly was the intent of

the ordinance. We had a lot of problems in some of the parks with a lot of

water and water holes. Residence?s getting in and out of the park. That?s one

of the things that council was trying to deal with in the ordinance.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Dudley gave the following information. On May 16th he applied for a variance

and he called and confirmed with Danny Cargill when he was suppose to be at the

meeting. I was told to be here today (July 3, 2002), I?m here today. I

subsequently got a letter from Bill Duck dated June 5, 2002 postmarked June 20,

2002 that his appeal had been turned down and that I did not show up for the

meeting. At that point, I decided that I needed legal council and before I

proceeded any further I called Randy Warner. He requested that I come down. He

is out of town this week. He requested of Bill Duck and me that I request to

you that this be continued until the next meeting in order to acquaint him with

the issues. In the event that it proceeded further after hearing this appeal.

I have prepared a package that I was going to give all of you prior to coming

down here. But upon talking to him, he asked that I come down here and request

that he be present when I make the appeal. I would appreciate if you let me do

that. My case is legitimate and solid and I?m asking that my council be

present and that I be able to come back in August.





4

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





Rebecca Wiggins: Ms. Chairman, although we have asked you all to extend to him

the courtesy to hear his case. He was notified of the June hearing. He was

notified by mail of the June hearing.

Mr. Dudley: I was not.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to table

this appeal until August so that Mr. Dudley can have his lawyer present.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO124--Denied.



There was no one present to present the application of Troy Monroe,

2342 Simmons Avenue, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for

an office only for a landscaping business, O. P. Landscaping. The property is

zoned R-2.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to

deny this application because there was no one present for two consecutive

meetings. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO130---Granted.



Melvin Battle, 2502 Walker Street, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

janitorial service, M. & F. Cleaning Service. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

the applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office

only. There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full

time.



There was no opposition to this application.















5

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to

grant this application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation

definition. Motion carried unanimously.



END OF CASES TABLED FROM THE JUNE 5th MEETING.



VARIANCES.



Case No. 02-V103?-Granted.



Ernie Wright presented the appeal of Dorothy Clements, 5328 Broadfield Drive,

for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 24

feet, in order to make an addition, 20? x 24?, a bedroom & bathroom, to a

single family residence. The property is zoned R-1A.





In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Wright gave the following information: Ms. Clements would like to have a

bedroom and a bathroom added to her home because she is going to have her

elderly mother move in with her. The same materials will be used to match the

house.

There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this appeal

for the addition because Ms. Clement?s mother will be moving in with her.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V104?-Granted.



Jeannie Lias, 436 Columbia Drive, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce

the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 1 foot, in order to make an

addition, 12? 5? x 30?, a carport, to a single family residence. The property

is zoned R-2.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Ms. Lias

gave the following information: She would like to add a carport to her home.

There is an existing slab. The carport will have gutters. The water will not

go to the neighbors yard. The same materials will be used to match the

house.









6

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this appeal

because the same materials will be used to match the house. The carport will

have gutters. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V105?-Granted.



Gary North, 3475 Cherokee Avenue, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce

the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 1 foot, in order to make an

addition, 5? 4? x 22?, to a single family residence. The property is zoned

R-3A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr. North

gave the following information: The house is already 3 feet from the property

line. The addition will extend up. He would like to build a stairwell to the

upstairs. They already have a permit and they have started on the

upstairs.

When the Chairman asked for opposition, Mr. & Mrs. Fred Morris came forward.

They stated this is a small house. The addition does not fit with the design

of the house.



There was a letter from Louise Harvey who does not oppose the addition.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal because this will be a nice improvement to the home. Motion

carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V106?-Granted.



Trey Dykes, presented the appeal of Thomas & Lisa Tanner, 1013 Timber Creek

Way, for a variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 25 feet

to 24 feet, in order to erect a single family residence. The property is zoned

R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr. Dykes

gave the following information: The house is already built. A corner of the

garage is 8 inches over the front building line.









7

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this appeal

because the house is already built. They realized that the house encroached on

the front building line by a few inches. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V107?-Granted.



Kenneth Van presented the appeal of G. Walton Hamrick, 2800 Vultee Drive, for a

variance to reduce the corner side yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 14

feet 8 inches, in order to make an addition, 16? 10? x 27? 3?, a bedroom, to a

single family residence. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr. Vann

gave the following information: They would like to make an addition because

Mr. Hamrick is an invalid. He can?t use the bathtub any more, so they are

going to build a shower. The same materials will be used to match the

house.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this appeal

to accommodate Mr. Hamrick who is an invalid. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V108?-Denied.



Alex Upchurch presented the appeal of McDonald Oil Company, 2218 Victory Drive,

for a variance to reduce the distance between billboards from 1250 feet to 921

feet. The property is zoned M-1.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Upchurch gave the following information: There are a row of plants in the

medium on the highway. They rented a boom truck and put signs up at different

heights to see if their price sign would be seen over the crape myrtles. The

sign would have to be approximately 60 feet. They would like a big price sign

for good visibility.











8

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to deny this appeal

because there are other options for the signage. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V109?-Granted.



Glen Spivey presented the appeal of Sunbelt-RCG, LLC, 3116 Adams Farm Drive,

for a variance to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from

117 to 78. The property is zoned C-3. Contingent upon replat approval.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Sprivey gave the following information: They are going to build a Marriott

Residence Inn. The national standard parking spaces for Marriott is a 1 to 1

ratio for parking spaces at the hotel. They would like to reduce the number of

parking spaces from 117 to 78. The 78 parking spaces work for them. They have

approximately 17 hotels around the southeast and the parking lots are all built

according to the national standard.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal because the number of parking spaces that they are asking for are

very common for this type of business. Motion carried unanimously. Contingent

upon Planning approval.



Case No. 02-V110?-Granted.



Gail Aderhold, Action Buildings, presented the appeal of

George & Acquanetta Patton, 3002 Viking Drive, for a variance to reduce the

corner side yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 8 feet, in order to make

an addition, 17? x 26?, a carport, to a single family residence. The property

is zoned R-2.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Aderhold gave the following information: Mr. & Mrs. Patton would like to add a

carport to their home. There is an existing slab that they will have to extend

out a few feet. There are other similar carports in the area.







9

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal because this is a typical carport over an existing slab. There are

similar carports in the area. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V111?-Granted.



Trey Dykes, 1902 Wildwood Avenue, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce

the rear yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 20 feet, in order to erect a

single family residence. The property is zoned R-3A. Contingent upon Planning

approval.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr. Dykes

gave the following information: He is asking for a rear variance so that he

can build his house further back. His neighbors are in support of what he wants

to do.



Planning recommends approval of this request.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this appeal

because the neighbors are in support of Mr. Dykes request for a variance.

Motion carried unanimously. Contingent upon Planning approval.



Case No. 02-V112?-Granted.



Ben Moon, 1019 Bent Pine Court, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce

the lot width requirement from 100 feet to 83.3 feet, in order to erect a

single family residence. The property is zoned R-1. Contingent upon Planning

approval.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr. Moon

gave the following information: He would like to reduce the lot width so that

he can build a house. They had to move the building line back to accommodate

more space for the house. This is an odd shaped lot.



Planning does recommend approval of this request.









10

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal so that the house can be built on the lot with adequate space.

This is an odd shaped lot. Motion carried unanimously. Contingent upon

Planning approval.



Case No. 02-V113?-Granted.



Jeffrey & Sheila Jones, 4723 Bridlewood Drive and Jack Cook presented the

appeal for a variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet

to 1 foot, in order to make an addition, a carport, 24? x 30?, to a single

family residence. The property is zoned R-2.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr. &

Mrs. Jones and Mr. Cook gave the following information: They would like to

build a double carport. The same materials will be used to match the house.

The carport will have gutters. The water will go to the sewer.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant this

appeal with the stipulation that the distance from the eave overhang to the

property line is 1 foot. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-V114?-Granted.



Sam Long, 2627 White Chapel Drive and Woody Woodell presented the appeal for a

variance to reduce the side yard setback requirement from 8 feet to 2 feet, in

order to make an addition, 22? x 24?, a carport, to a single family residence.

The property is zoned R-2.



In their statements and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr.

Long and Mr. Woodell gave the following information: Mr. Long would like to

add an aluminum carport to the side of the house. The carport will be over an

existing slab.



There was no opposition present to this appeal.







11

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Billingsley, to grant

this appeal because this is a typical carport awning. This addition was

discussed with the neighbor and they were not in opposition. Motion carried

unanimously.



Case No. 02-V115?-Granted.



Jason Litz, 5990 Highpoint Drive, presented the appeal for a variance to reduce

the corner side yard setback requirement from 30 feet to 5 feet, in order to

make an addition, 23? x 43?, a bedroom, bathroom & garage, to a single family

residence. The property is zoned R-1.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, Mr. Litz

gave the following information: They would like to make an addition to their

home because they are expecting a baby. The same materials will be used to

match the house.

There was no opposition present to this appeal.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this appeal

for the addition because they are expecting a baby. Motion carried

unanimously.



HOME OCCUPATIONS.



CaseNo. 02-HO141?-Granted.



David Smith, 4652 Bridlewood Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for route service of

convenience stores, A-1 Distribution/Mr. Checkout. The property is zoned R-2.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.

UPS will come to his home twice a month



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.





13

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





Case No. 02-HO142--Granted.



Blaine Gros, 5960 E. Heights Drive #1304, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for Radio/TV

voice production, Blaine Stewart Imaging. The property is zoned R-3A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.





Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.





Case No. 02-HO143?-Granted.



Elaine Bunch, 6530 Big Oak Court, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling fine art

prints (away from the home) B & B Fine Arts. The property is zoned R-2.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.

UPS will come to her home once a week.



When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Pharris Edwards came forward. She

would like the neighborhood to stay quiet and she does not want additional

traffic.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.













13



BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





Case No. 02-HO144?-Granted.



Deborah Graham, 3763 Robin Road, presented her application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling miscellaneous

retail (gift baskets, floral arrangements & ballon bouquets), Peach Enterprises

(catalog sales). The property is zoned R-1A.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.





Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO145?-Granted.



Elaine Smith, 3804 17th Avenue, presented the application for her and her

husband for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only

for a travel agency, Tip?s Travels of Columbus. The property is zoned R-2.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: They will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO146?-Granted.



William Holloway Jr., 2723 Beech Street, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a

painting contractor, Perfection Paint Company. The property is zoned R-2.







14

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full time.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition,

but with the stipulation that there will be no storage of work material at the

residence. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO147?-Tabled.



David Shult, 5238 Ray Drive, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a vinyl siding business,

Lonewolf Siding & More. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office only.

This will be full time. He will have his brother-in-law working with him. He

does not live in the same residence.





There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to table this

application until August so that Mr. Shult?s brother-in-law can also apply for

a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO148?-Granted.



Roger Segrest, 939 S. Ridge Drive, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a lawn service,

Advanced Care Lawn Service. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.





15

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





When the Chairperson asked for opposition, Martha Zirkeoboach came forward.

She does not want Mr. Segrest to have a home business.



Mr. Phillips made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Fox, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO149?-Granted.



Harold Ortiz, 5706 Marlette Court, presented his application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for internet services

(re-selling computers), New D?mension Technologies. The property is zoned R-3B.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO150?-Granted.



Sloan Veal, 1495 Ridgecreek Way, presented his application for a Certificate of

Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for a photography business,

Remember When. The property is zoned R-1A.



In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.







16

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





Case No. 02-HO151?-Tabled.



There was no one present to present the application of June Love, 4480 Utica

Circle, for a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only

for selling crystal, porcelain figurines & pottery (internet), B. Love. The

property is zoned R-2.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to table this

application until the August meeting because there was no one present to

present the application. Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO152--Granted.



Daniel & Linda Pasiewicz, 3212 Plateau Drive, presented their application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for selling

snow cones (mobile), Snow Shack. The property is zoned C-3.





In their statements and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicants gave the following information: They will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full time.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO153--Granted.



Justin Gingrich, 4123 Steam Mill Road, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for

manufacturing of custom knives (internet), Ranger Knives. The property is

zoned R-1A.















17



BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members,

the applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office

only. There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full

time.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO154--Granted.



Charlotte Taylor, 5492 Congress Court, presented her application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for interior

decorating, C.A.T.?s Roomer. The property is zoned R-2.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full time.



There was no opposition to this application.





Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO155--Granted.



Anthony Wright, 7829 Hilldale Drive, presented his application for a

Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for servicing

automotive service equipment. The property is zoned R-1A.





In his statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: He will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be full time.













18

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002





There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO156?-Granted.



Dorothy Williams, 3700 Buena Vista Road Apt. 224, presented her application for

a Certificate of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for gift

wrapping, fruit baskets, flower arrangements & ballons (sold away from the

home), Williams Floral & Wedding Designer Shop. The property is zoned A-O.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part time.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



Case No. 02-HO157?-Granted.



Linda Frazier, 4815 Pyburn Court, presented her application for a Certificate

of Occupancy for a Home Occupation for an office only for retail sale of fine

arts (catalog sales), Treasure Expressions Fine Arts. The property is zoned

R-1A.



In her statement and in response to questions from the Board Members, the

applicant gave the following information: She will be using an office only.

There will be no employees and no additional traffic. This will be part

time.



There was no opposition to this application.



Mr. Fox made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Phillips, to grant this

application because it does meet the intent of the Home Occupation definition.

Motion carried unanimously.



END OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.





19

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ? 07/03/2002











The minutes of the regular meeting of June 5th were approved as presented.



There being no further business to come before the Board,

the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.



















____________________ __________________

Leah Braxton, Bill Duck,

Chairperson Secretary





_____________________ __________________

Larry Phillips, Danny Cargill

Vice Chairperson Acting Secretary





































20